Breaking: claims that the American Supreme Court will strike down Roe v. Wade

Well yes, both sides are equally suspicious that the other's motives influence the court, and both obviously make clearly partisan choices for their judges.

Which would strengthen the decision for this not being an issue decided by a court increasingly utilised to implement political policy, but to return it to the people and democratic process.

The concept of binding precedent has been challenged before in other cases which have been overturned. If you read Judge Alitos draft it addresses why this will not impact other judgements.

But again, if we have partisan judges surely the best way forward is to remove the decision from them and allow people to decide.

I'm still genuinely interested in whether there is another country which has abortion as a right under a constitution?

Or a country which legalises no limit access to abortion up to 9 months? As some states will now do.

This judgement will allow some states to now make decisions on abortion those conservative judges see as abhorrent and immoral.
Yet their position is, the people decide the law.

I’m just suspicious that this decision wasn’t motivated by jurisprudential concern, but because the court is full to the brim with right wing catholics. I’m also concerned that this is going to have a massive knock on effect to the concept of binding precedent and other judgments (like gay marriage.)

Well yes @WeeBisom that's the point of law in question since roe vs Wade and what has been considered by the supreme court.

If you read the draft position it addresses all those points.
Which obviously many would argue differently.

But a supreme court gets to consider those points and make a decision.

And the decision (it seems) is to allow abortion law to be decided democratically. As it is in all (?) democracies which allow abortion.

And in Ireland people voted for legal abortion but with significant limits, which I'm sure many on here would disagree with.

Some states will go with a more extreme no limits vs complete ban positions (if a majority support it) which are extreme.

Most won't.
Because most people don't support those extreme positions.

I understand the theoretical point that abortion laws should be determined by democracy and the legislature. But given that roe v Wade has been in place since the 70s, why change this now? And if the real reason is a sudden realisation after decades that the court has over stepped its boundaries, then what about all the other similar decisions? The Supreme Court in America has famously made many decisions that have side stepped the democratic process: brown v board of education, for example. It seems incredibly destabilising to look back at all these decisions and say “oops , we didn’t really have the power to decide that after all. Should have left it to the states.”

Genuine question: is there a country which provides abortion on demand without limit up to 9 months?

This will continue to be the case in many US states.

And it is an extreme position.
(Just not on here).

And some states will have a complete ban (if people support it).
And that is an extreme position.

Most states will continue with abortion with varying degrees of limits.

In fact Ireland is an interesting comparison, as it moved from a type of constitutional ban, to a democratic vote where people decided the law on abortion.
And people wanted access to abortion.

The supreme court in the USA has decided there shouldn't be a protection in the constitution and it should be decided by democratic vote of the people. And in the states this is by state.

If people want abortion rights in law they will now vote for it.

Is there another country that has abortion rights protected in the constitution?
I believe most/ all countries which allow abortion do so within laws which could be changed by an elected legislative?

That is what is happening here. It will be decided by the state law, and the people will vote on this.

How do you think abortion law should be decided? Particularly in a country with very divided opinion?

And that is a very different question from, what do you think the law should be.

Ireland had a vote on it very recently and people seemed to think that was a reasonable democratic way to decide.

The trans attempt to get on the bandwagon just makes me roll my eyes. Read something on NPR today by a trans activist telling us access to abortion is important to non binary and trans men too - no shit sherlock, we always knew you were biologically female even while we used they/them or he/him out of politeness - everyone does.

The attempt to police people's language even to the point of them telling "cis women" to stop "centering themselves" has been quite sickening and I hope has opened a few more eyes. That and them saying "actually, it's about bodily autonomy" so that transwomen can be included too. FUCK. OFF.

People are being given extreme choices when they probably want some moderate policies.

The right to abortion established under Roe and then Casey isn't an extreme choice. There isn't some magical more moderate policy that would be fine. The majority of americans want the Roe ruling to stand and are happy with the protections it gives. They don't think it is extreme.

Roe will be overturned by a supreme court majority appointed by Trump - a president who did not have the popular vote by a long mile and who appointed his last justice under the shameful watch of Mitch McConnell as votes were already being counted in the election he lost. The republicans (who actually don't give a shit about the unborn - but even less about the born - and who have abortions when they need them) have campaigned on this issue for decades.

And yet it is Obama and the democrats who caused this? Seriously? Is there no way Obama and the democrats (who I admit are often useless outside a couple of people like Stacy Abrams) can't be blamed for the republican shit?

This isn't just about abortion rights although that is enough to make this the most important issue of this decade. This is also about minority rule in the US and is deeply damaging to democracy.

The trans attempt to get on the bandwagon just makes me roll my eyes. Read something on NPR today by a trans activist telling us access to abortion is important to non binary and trans men too - no shit sherlock, we always knew you were biologically female even while we used they/them or he/him out of politeness - everyone does.

Sorry, that should have been a emoji not a .

There's nothing funny about what's going on .

No, I can't see how.

Whether Dems maintained Roe v Wade, or were campaigning for reinstatement of abortion rights taken away by the right wing, both these would be attractive to pro-choice voters.

The only way that loss of Roe v Wade would lessen the Dem vote is if it were somehow made the Dems' fault that a right-wing-tilted court appointed by a Republican president at the behest of the religious right is striking down Roe v Wade.

Oh, and look at the torrent of messaging trying to make out exactly that.

Plus of course lots of opportunistic attempts to blame, well, absolutely everyone except the right-wing misogynist establishment that has done this. Eg as tabbycatstripy pointed out earlier, a Twitter-storm blaming not men, but women, and not just women but specifically white women (thus adding a bit of race-baiting to distract further). And then I've seen blaming even more specific, so it's white feminist women. And so on.

It's all mince. Energetic and desperate mince to distract from who has actually done this. Because if that responsibility rests where it's due, the Republicans may be toast.

That is interesting - it sounds like Roe vs Wade was actually quite critical to both parties. To the Dems for holding on to voters that wanted to keep it and the Republicans for holding on to those who wanted it repealed.

Thank you, nepeta, that was very interesting.

I've seen the Republicans described as "the dog that caught the car".

So I guess there are two sections of the Republican party which are horrified right now: those who were actually pro-choice; and those who were cynically assuming the conservative Christians were their captive vote.

Nice try at distraction, but I'm sure everyone at the protest will manage to carry on protesting about abortion laws anyway. (Including those protesting against abortion.)

Tossing "Trans! Trans!" around like a laser pointer in front of a cat is not going to distract them. Or me.

Not aimed at me, but I'd like to answer if it's ok.

The two crucial parts of the Republican base are people who are financial conservatives (vote on taxes etc.) and people who belong to far-right Evangelical Christian denominations.

The religious group is very conservative, lots of literal Bible-thumping, and the Republican Party needs their numbers, because they don't have a large enough base otherwise from the money-based conservatives.

This Xtian group is against GLB rights and against abortion and also for male domination inside families and other similar ideas, often based on literal interpretations of the Bible (the way similar conservative groups interpret the Quran literally).

The unwritten contract they have with the Republican Party is that they vote Republican as long as that Party is willing to ban abortion.

So it's interesting to see what might happen if abortion is outlawed in at least half the states. Could be the end of the Republican Party, because the conservative Xtians would no longer feel tied to voting for them and a few of them might care about the poor (mentioned in the Bible many, many more times than abortion which is not really mentioned at all).

Just seen this video of someone asking the protesters "what is a woman?"

twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1521902232161210368?s=20&t=7hvPlFd6qFtdH-L9Hajuuw

Sorry, if it's been posted before. It's funny, but also shows how that having these ridiculous redefinitions actually leads to serious consequences, such as the restrictions around women's rights.

The article also makes the interesting point I've seen MRAs use here, that's the sweetly dropped hint to the effect of 'nice bit of protection around abortion you've got there, what a shame if something were to happen to it' - usually used to shut women up on the grounds that if they fight for that right they'll get their reproductive privileges rescinded.

Well here we are. Honestly, what have we got left to lose?

And to be fair, when concerns about creeping loss of abortion rights, or elevation of anti-abortionists to positions of power, have been mentioned on MN, I've often seen right-wing posters say,
"Nah, stop thinking about it, Roe v Wade will never fall."
or
"Oh, that Jacob Rees-Mogg would never dare actually act against women's reproductive rights."

Jacob Rees-Mogg accused of spreading ‘harmful clinical falsehoods’ about morning-after pills
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-morning-after-pills-abortion-b2006978.html
He had been asked to make parliamentary time for a discussion about "proper funding and accessibility for women's contraception and health services".

But in response to the question from Labour's Diana Johnson Mr Rees-Mogg replied: "The right honourable lady cannot expect me to speak in favour of abortifacients."

Mr Mogg said in 2017 that he was "completely opposed" to abortion including in cases of rape or incest.

Yes, I agree MalagaNights, it’s such an obviously cross-party issue.

It’s very clear that for some voters abortion is a pure single issue that overrides anything else at all.

For example, the articles below make explicit that there were people who were unhappy with Donald Trump’s admission of sexual assaults, and with his previous pro-choice position – or who actively disliked him. Some will doubtless also have been unhappy with him across other issues like job-losses, handling of Covid, support for Putin, or whatever. But they were prepared to ignore all of that for the sake of getting the abortion legislation they wanted.

Meanwhile there must be pro-choice people who voted Republican for a whole host of the other issues, who are stunned at the loss of Roe v Wade. (If it does actually go ahead.)

I don't know, maybe they just assumed it wouldn’t happen?

I mean, Trump made no secret of his promises to the anti-abortion religious right, but he also broke his promises regularly (wallowed in the swamp, didn’t build that wall, etc). So maybe it came as a bit of a surprise that appointing anti-abortion judges is a promise he kept – one the US will be living with for a long time after he’s dead.

Trump campaigning for election in 2016:

Donald Trump recruits hardline anti-abortion activist, Marjorie Dannenfelser, to consolidate evangelical support
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-hardline-antiabortion-marjorie-dannenfelser-conservative-prolife-roe-wade-a7313676.html

Donald Trump has quietly doubled down on his anti-abortion stance appointing one of the pro-life movement’s most radical activists, Marjorie Dannenfelser, to lead what he calls his ‘Pro-Life Coalition’.
In a letter to anti-abortion groups Mr Trump vows to appoint Supreme Court justices who will support new curbs on abortion rights

During Trump’s term in office, 2018:
Trump first president to attend anti-abortion rally
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51239795

Trump seeking re-election in 2020:
Trump gets huge boost from anti-abortion group
www.politico.com/news/2020/01/17/trump-anti-abortion-pac-100258
Before Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, agreed to chair the Donald J. Trump for President Pro-life Coalition in 2016, she requested a list of commitments in writing from the Republican nominee.

To ensure that Trump, who described himself as “very pro-choice” not two decades earlier, wouldn’t betray anti-abortion conservatives as president, Dannenfelser asked that he promise to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding, codify into law the Hyde Amendment limiting the use of federal money for abortions, enact legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks and strictly nominate anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.

Despite the fulfillment of just one of those promises — two conservative Trump nominees now sit on the high court — Dannenfelser’s group is preparing to reward the president handsomely

This is the left in NZ too, as much as the world loves Jacinda Adern, she - and her Minister for Women - are no defenders of women’s rights.

Thanks for sharing - what a read…

This is like looking into the future. I note the early denunciation of women as "dinosaurs" for example. It feels like Labour is copying the Dems' every move as regards women.

Wow that's a pretty damning and informative article.

I don't know.
It's interesting that abortion has become such a party line issue, rather than a personally held moral position which crosses party lines.

I presume it's because of the influence of some religious groups in the Republican party and their position on the issue.

In reality I suspect both parties are full of people who are much more moderate on the issue than the official party line and would agree on access to abortion with some limits and the disagreement would be there.

But both parties seem to have staked out extremist positions probably not reflective of majority opinion, with a whole lot of other crap you have to swallow with it, like Trump or Trans kids.

People are being given extreme choices when they probably want some moderate policies.

No, they seen to have no problem telling women what to do.